Embedded Scripting -- Tcl? Lua? Thoughts? Suggestions?

On 3/20/2015 6:24 AM, Mel Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 02:38:24 -0400, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> I used to know a vision impaired programmer who used a braille reader
>> and keyboard.  I never worked directly with him, but he worked very much
>> like I did (and do): when he collaborated with other people they would
>> pass code back and forth with markup and comment.
>
> Same here.  There was a senior programmer in the department who was
> totally blind.

Programming is an ideal (high paying) occupation for blind/VI folks.
There's little need to navigate the physical environment:  just sit
at your desk and rely on the *memory* you have honed, of necessity,
to remember what sighted programmers would "refresh" visually.  Few
folks want to sit around waiting for a disability check and the
"kindness of others"!

> He once asked somebody to teach him the light switches so
> he could tell by touch to turn the lights on when he was first one in,
> and not terrify later people when they found out they weren't alone.  For
> fun at home he raised goats and rebuilt auto engines.

The individual I spent most of my professional time with would drag me
out to play pinball whenever he knew a machine was nearby.

He would also push to learn how to service the Reading Machine as
a means of cutting his reliance on "factory service" (and the lost
time waiting for someone to hop on a plane) -- tricky as the machines
were physically large (washing machine sized), wire-wrapped, and
rather fragile.

(In the 40 years since, I think the functionality is now available in
a cell-phone sized device; maybe even integrated into the phone, by now!)

> He had dual
> braille readers and could read one text with each hand at the same time.

A single line braille terminal (just an I/O device) is about $3K
($70-100/cell).  So, he was lucky enough to have the resources to
buy *two* (or, the purchase heavily subsidized by tax dollars).
OTOH, it's *just* a "display" so you need to carry a COTS laptop
as well (or have one accessible with appropriate software already
installed; you're not going to just plug it into any "random"
machine)

> Apparently eyes are trained to work in lock-step, but hands aren't.

Hands *want* to operate "synchronously" (try doing things at different
rates in different hands) but you can break that "connection" esp if
there is an incentive to do so. (e.g., rub your belly and pat your head)

Many of the things that we do (take for granted) aren't really hard-wired
but simply learned behaviors (least effort).  When I initially thought
these folks had "sharper senses", I was met with a chuckle, told to close
my eyes and <whatever>:  "See, there's no magic involved.  You're just
relying on your vision because its *easiest* for you!  *I* don't have that
option!"

> The point, I think, is that blind people can do excellent work if they
> have tools they can use.  Whether the rest of us are wise enough and rich
> enough to create tools like those is the question.

Of course!  Assuming the absence of additional "disabilities" (they
often are not singular things), there is no reason why you can't
perform similar tasks -- but in a different way.  E.g., if you couldn't
*easily* look up and refresh your memory of the previous line of text,
you'd learn to hold it better in your memory (as the alternative is to
navigate up one line with your braille terminal, voice output, etc.).

Listening to synthetic speech (for someone who has no *need* to do so)
is tedious and slow.  OTOH, folks who are used to listening to it
often complained that the maximum speaking rate was never fast enough;
that they were always "waiting" for the synthesizer.  Imagine listening
to spoken word at rates approaching/exceeding your visual reading rate!

The problem is that folks don't consider the situations of others when
we design our products.  We assume everyone has two hands, two working
eyes, adequate hearing, mobility, good motor skills, etc.  EVEN IF THE
PRODUCT'S INTERFACE DOESN'T *require* THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.

The fallacy in the AT community is thinking that (designing for)
"accessibility is free"; that it doesn't cost anything (NRE or product
cost) to design "universal" interfaces (and, what, exactly, is meant
by "universal"?)

*My* goal is to put a number on that and provide a framework that
can act as a starting point -- so others don't have to recreate
similar libraries/mechanisms from scratch (what would your
development efforts be like if you didn't have preexisting GUIs
to rely on when creating a new product?  If, instead, you had to
write your own before you could deliver a product??)

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:12:39 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>How does the choice of how you represent "assignment", conditionals, etc.
>in a scripting language make it more difficult for everyone else?  Do you
>*care* if I say:
>    Y = 3
>instead of:
>    Y := 3;
>or:
>    Y <- 3
>or:
>    Y gets 3

"add x to y giving z"

COBOL failed because it's syntax was designed primarily to be read by
non-programmers and the syntax was both cumbersome to use and was not
expressive enough to accommodate newer programming methodologies.

Yes, COBOL later introduced a more algebriac-like syntax, but it did
not abandon the problematic "readable" syntax - the newer syntax was
simply permitted as a substitute.


>How would you set up an irrigation system if you wanted it to be "zero
>configuration"?  

Tell people to open a valve when they want it on and close the valve
when they want it off.  That has worked remarkably well since the
invention of managed irrigation ~7000 years ago.  8-)


>You can design a telephone answering system to automatically discard/inhibit
>incoming calls from folks whose previous calls you have (apparently) ignored.
>But, how do you then tell it to "forget" that fact?

Why would you?  Why are they suddenly worthy?



>C'mon, how hard is it to set the time on a VCR?  Or, in your car?
>Is it really *that* much harder to plug some video cables into a
>TV and your cable box?  Is anything beyond the power cord considered
>too difficult??

For a lot of people the answer is "Yes!"  It has been estimated that
more than 1 billion VCRs flashed 12:00 for their entire lifetime.


>Products are designed with too much *apparent* complexity.  So, it
>intimidates users before they even make their initial attempt.

No.  Many people are unapologetically non-technical and get upset when
they discover things to be more complicated than using a doorknob.


>E.g., the irrigation controller in my system is "naively" configured
>like most COTS controllers:  Ni minutes at time Ti on days Di for zone
>Zi.  

That's already too complex for some people - it involves "zones" and
possibly even "setting a timer".


Don't you know the Zone is something to be avoided?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Zone

[
SpiralZone.com seems to have closed shop, but the series is up on
kisscartoon.me.  Interestingly, the series starts "in progress" and
the backstory unfolds as the series progresses.  The episode
"Oversight" is the best short (20 min) introduction.
http://kisscartoon.me/Cartoon/Spiral-Zone/Episode-054-Oversight?id=28558
]


>Would you *ever* think the ability to *read* "wouldn't matter"?  Yet, chances
>are, if you lose your vision *now*, you will have no choice but to rely
>on "talking books" or "screen readers" (you aren't going to get access to
>your "home owner's association newsletter" in any "accessible" form!).

Nope.  I'd eat a bullet and be done with it.

YMMV,
George

On 3/20/2015 6:55 AM, David Brown wrote:

> (I know you like writing long posts, but most of it seemed to be rhetoric, so I
> snipped it.)

Rhetoric, anecdotes, call it what you will.

Most folks replying to topics already have their mind made up.  So,
the point of any further discussion isn't to try to "win an
argument" or "change their mind" but, rather, to speak to those
reading over their shoulders; to get *them* to think about the
issue and form their own opinions.

Or not.  (many people avoid thinking about things that have difficult
"solutions")

I suspect most folks don't personally know (many!) blind/deaf/handicapped
individuals.  And, probably haven't invested enough time on a "personal"
level to be able to engage them on what are very personal topics.

Ever asked a blind person what it's like not to see?  Or, a deaf
person not to hear?  etc.  (Or, do those things never cross your
mind??)

So, people form opinions based on what they *think* the other person's
experience is like:  he's not openly grumbling about his "condition"
(really?  would that make a difference??  Or, would you just dismiss
him as a "whiner"??) so he must have figured out how to *adapt*!

End of problem.

Other people fail to realize there even *is* a problem!  How many
people are color blind?  Suffer from Parkinsonian tremor?  Essential
tremor?  Do you even *consider* these issues in your designs?  Or,
do you just forget about them and expect they'll somehow "adapt"?
And, when your product return rate is higher than desired (desired being
warranty failures, only!), is it *your* fault?  Or, the customers'?

I, OTOH, exploit every learning opportunity that I can.  E.g., I've used
my relationship with the (deaf) couple across the street to get a better
understanding of *their* problems, solutions, culture, etc.

"How do you tell when someone comes to the door if you can't hear the
doorbell?"
Ans:  doorbell flashes several lights in the house.

"What if you're asleep when someone comes knocking?"
Ans:  the bed vibrates

"How do you know if the toilet is 'running on' (faulty valve)?"
Ans:  our water bill NEXT MONTH will be higher than expected and
we'll have top figure out the cause

"How do you know when the washer/dryer is finished with a load?"
Ans:  <frown>  we *watch* it.

"So, obviously, the same applies to microwave oven, kitchen
timer, etc.?"
Ans:  no, we've got a little "egg timer" that we can use -- if we
discipline ourselves to do so.

"What about the fire alarm?"
Ans:  hopefully we see the light come on to help you find the exit

"And if you're asleep at the time?"
Ans:  ??

"Why is your newborn *deaf* baby considered 'perfect'?"
Ans:  they don't see deafness as a liability but, rather, as a "goal"

"How much is that cultural rationalization...?"

On 3/20/2015 11:11 AM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:12:39 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

[language stuff elided as we've already "agreed to disagree"]

>> Would you *ever* think the ability to *read* "wouldn't matter"?  Yet, chances
>> are, if you lose your vision *now*, you will have no choice but to rely
>> on "talking books" or "screen readers" (you aren't going to get access to
>> your "home owner's association newsletter" in any "accessible" form!).
>
> Nope.  I'd eat a bullet and be done with it.

Amusingly, many people express sentiments like that -- esp when it comes
to various debilitating/terminal illnesses.  Though, most often, it is
expressed as an imperative to *others*:  "Shoot me when that happens!"
(as if the effort isn't something they could undertake, themselves)

In the past few years, I've watched several friends/colleagues die
pretty nasty deaths.  All with forewarning.  "The illness will progress
along these lines...   ... until ultimately claiming your life.  The
actual *cause* of death will be (asphyxiation, etc.)"

In each case, *yesterday* was the best day they were going to have
(and that same thing will be true again "tomorrow").  I.e., things
will only get *worse*.  More painful.  Loss of capabilities.  etc.

Yet, no one has taken the "express exit"!  And, had they been asked
prior to their Dx's, I suspect they all would have expressed a
statement like the above!

And, I don't consider any of them "cowardly".  In fact, watching someone
struggle with ovarian Ca, esophageal Ca, stomach Ca, ALS, etc. seems
to me to be far more "courageous" than the other expedient!

I came closest to asking my friend with the esophageal Ca (prior to his
death) this very question:  "What makes you want to wake up in the morning?
What are you thinking about *knowing* the inevitable outcome AND the
gruesome path ahead of you?"

But, it seemed selfish to ask.  So, I remain in the dark.

Sadly, I later learned that he had confided far more in me about his
thinking about his illness, prognosis, treatment alternatives, etc.
than any "relative".  Leaving me to wonder if I perhaps did *him*
a disservice by not giving him the chance to answer my unposed question!

(sigh)

But, I have two friends currently hording meds for their "Final Exit"
(reference to a text).  And, very vocal about their efforts.  So, perhaps
when *their* times draw near, I'll be more willing to broach the subject.

[OTOH, if you suddenly lose your vision, please drop me a line before
you put that one in the chamber!  :> ]

Ain't growing old, fun??!

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:20:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:


>Many of the things that we do (take for granted) aren't really hard-wired
>but simply learned behaviors (least effort).  When I initially thought
>these folks had "sharper senses", I was met with a chuckle, told to close
>my eyes and <whatever>:  "See, there's no magic involved.  You're just
>relying on your vision because its *easiest* for you!  *I* don't have that
>option!"

No, it actually *is* true that their senses are sharper: not because
their sensory modality is better, but rather because the brain cells
that would have been devoted to vision instead are devoted to
processing other modalities.
[The visual cortex is roughly 1/8 of your brain - there's a whole lot
of capacity there.]

It has been proven that the brain adapts to loss of a sense modality
by redirecting the cells that process that input to other tasks.  It
has also been proven that it happens very quickly: there was a study
in which sighted people were blindfolded for several weeks and given
brain scans as they adapted to being sightless and tried to learn
braille.  Their visual cortexes shifted to processing other inputs:
mainly touch because "reading" now involved their fingers, but also
some small areas shifted to processing hearing and smell.  When the
blindfolds were removed, most of the cortex quickly shifted back to
processing vision, but in many of the subjects some enhanced sense of
touch remained.

The study did not continue long enough to see whether hearing and
smell eventually would improve similarly as did the sense of touch.

It was discovered in a second study using the same subjects that the
brain adapted more quickly to being blind when it happened again.  The
subjects didn't experience the same disorientation as in the first
study.

A related study using other subjects discovered that an EM jolt given
to the visual cortex allowed it to transition more quickly to doing
something else [a possible aid for those who become suddenly blind].

George

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:20:14 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>On 3/20/2015 11:11 AM, George Neuner wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:12:39 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>[language stuff elided as we've already "agreed to disagree"]
>
>>> Would you *ever* think the ability to *read* "wouldn't matter"?  Yet, chances
>>> are, if you lose your vision *now*, you will have no choice but to rely
>>> on "talking books" or "screen readers" (you aren't going to get access to
>>> your "home owner's association newsletter" in any "accessible" form!).
>>
>> Nope.  I'd eat a bullet and be done with it.
>
>Amusingly, many people express sentiments like that -- esp when it comes
>to various debilitating/terminal illnesses.  Though, most often, it is
>expressed as an imperative to *others*:  "Shoot me when that happens!"
>(as if the effort isn't something they could undertake, themselves)

I have living will and health care proxy that stipulate no heroic
measures to save my life.  I trust my family not to contest them
because they have the same provisions.


>In the past few years, I've watched several friends/colleagues die
>pretty nasty deaths.  All with forewarning.  "The illness will progress
>along these lines...   ... until ultimately claiming your life.  The
>actual *cause* of death will be (asphyxiation, etc.)"
>
>In each case, *yesterday* was the best day they were going to have
>(and that same thing will be true again "tomorrow").  I.e., things
>will only get *worse*.  More painful.  Loss of capabilities.  etc.
>
>Yet, no one has taken the "express exit"!  And, had they been asked
>prior to their Dx's, I suspect they all would have expressed a
>statement like the above!
>
>And, I don't consider any of them "cowardly".  In fact, watching someone
>struggle with ovarian Ca, esophageal Ca, stomach Ca, ALS, etc. seems
>to me to be far more "courageous" than the other expedient!

In many ancient cultures, the elderly and infirm were *supposed* to
"go away" when they became a drain on the others.  It isn't cowardly
to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others.  The herd survives by
leaving the slow behind.

Nor do I think it is courageous to battle on when there is no hope of
winning.  I think it *is* cowardly to spend all your resources
fighting a losing battle and leave nothing for your family.  Someone
who has no family can do whatever they want.

It's been estimated that, for all causes, in the US the last week of
life costs an average $200,000.  The average cost of treating cancer
exceeds $1 million - more than most people will earn in their
lifetime.  Who pays for that?  "Other People's Money"[*] AKA insurance
AKA the biggest legal scam in history.  Is every life worth the
expense?.  Extremely doubtful ... I *know* mine isn't.

No matter what your sensibilities, the fact is that society does not
have the resources to carry those who don't contribute.  We are
trillions in debt already because of bleeding hearts trying.


[*] a good movie, but not a role model for society.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102609/


>[OTOH, if you suddenly lose your vision, please drop me a line before
>you put that one in the chamber!  :> ]

You know that is a possibility 8-/  along with several other
potentially nasty outcomes.  My health is stable and I'm not going
broke, but if that balance shifts negatively, I won't burden others to
care for me.

In case I forget, I'll leave a note in my will for someone to send you
an email.  8-)


>Ain't growing old, fun??!

Whatever you're smoking, send me some.  Growing old sucks!!!

George

On 3/22/2015 6:28 AM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:20:14 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2015 11:11 AM, George Neuner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:12:39 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>
>> [language stuff elided as we've already "agreed to disagree"]
>>
>>>> Would you *ever* think the ability to *read* "wouldn't matter"?  Yet, chances
>>>> are, if you lose your vision *now*, you will have no choice but to rely
>>>> on "talking books" or "screen readers" (you aren't going to get access to
>>>> your "home owner's association newsletter" in any "accessible" form!).
>>>
>>> Nope.  I'd eat a bullet and be done with it.
>>
>> Amusingly, many people express sentiments like that -- esp when it comes
>> to various debilitating/terminal illnesses.  Though, most often, it is
>> expressed as an imperative to *others*:  "Shoot me when that happens!"
>> (as if the effort isn't something they could undertake, themselves)
>
> I have living will and health care proxy that stipulate no heroic
> measures to save my life.  I trust my family not to contest them
> because they have the same provisions.

Yup, same here.  But, one of "medicine's" dirty little secrets is
there's no *guarantee* that they will be honored, in practice.
The doctor's ignored C's dad's DNR on at least one occasion.
She had to read them the riot act to ensure it didn't happen
again.

And, of course, you always have the risk of your "advocate(s)"
not having the commitment to follow through on your wishes.  E.g.,
C's mom had her *own* wishes regarding the dad's EoL; and it didn't
bother her that they were in direct conflict with *his* wishes!
(Hey, *he* can't do anything to fight for HIS desires; I win!)

I have a lady friend with her "DNR" tattooed on her chest.  She
*probably* thinks that affords her some sort of "guarantee"
(They can't say they were unaware!)  OTOH, I could see a lawyer
arguing that the cost of *her* changing her mind could have been
so high (tattoo removal) that, perhaps, she *had* changed her mind
but hadn't come around to having the tattoo removed.

<shrug>  Screwed up society when *others* seem to think they have a
right to decide how *you* handle your own life...

>> In the past few years, I've watched several friends/colleagues die
>> pretty nasty deaths.  All with forewarning.  "The illness will progress
>> along these lines...   ... until ultimately claiming your life.  The
>> actual *cause* of death will be (asphyxiation, etc.)"
>>
>> In each case, *yesterday* was the best day they were going to have
>> (and that same thing will be true again "tomorrow").  I.e., things
>> will only get *worse*.  More painful.  Loss of capabilities.  etc.
>>
>> Yet, no one has taken the "express exit"!  And, had they been asked
>> prior to their Dx's, I suspect they all would have expressed a
>> statement like the above!
>>
>> And, I don't consider any of them "cowardly".  In fact, watching someone
>> struggle with ovarian Ca, esophageal Ca, stomach Ca, ALS, etc. seems
>> to me to be far more "courageous" than the other expedient!
>
> In many ancient cultures, the elderly and infirm were *supposed* to
> "go away" when they became a drain on the others.  It isn't cowardly
> to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others.  The herd survives by
> leaving the slow behind.

Yup.

> Nor do I think it is courageous to battle on when there is no hope of
> winning.  I think it *is* cowardly to spend all your resources
> fighting a losing battle and leave nothing for your family.  Someone
> who has no family can do whatever they want.

Yup.  Talk to a financial planner about what you'll "need" for the rest
of your life.  You'll discover that a huge portion of your assets are
"consumed" in the last ~2 years of your life.  I guess folks EAT MORE
just before they die??  :-/

OTOH, I suspect our health care system couldn't abruptly handle having
all of that extra "service"/demand removed.  I suspect it's all that
EoL care that pays many of *their* bills.

OToOH, I wonder how much of those funds come from the *patient*, his
family, etc.?

I think a movement towards assisted suicide, enhanced medical directives
for *all* would scare the hell out of that industry -- and its investors!
     "37% of people have registered DNR's.  That's up from the previous
     year's figure.  How are we going to make up for that loss of BUSINESS?"

> It's been estimated that, for all causes, in the US the last week of
> life costs an average $200,000.  The average cost of treating cancer
> exceeds $1 million - more than most people will earn in their
> lifetime.  Who pays for that?  "Other People's Money"[*] AKA insurance
> AKA the biggest legal scam in history.  Is every life worth the
> expense?.  Extremely doubtful ... I *know* mine isn't.

Some 20+ years back, I was in England for business.  Watching one of their
4 (?) TV stations to kill time in the hotel before a meeting.  They had
an interesting, candid discussion re: health care resources (NHS).  IIRC,
one of the comments offered was, "Do we fix this 80 year old (hypothetical)
woman's broken hip -- with the expectation that she's going to die soon,
regardless -- or, do we vaccinate 200(?) kids against something that
could make even *one* of their lives better?"

But, in this country, those topics are taboo.  "Rationing", "Assisted
Suicide", etc.  K&#4294967295;bler-Ross's seminal text on the subject (I'm sure more
has been written in the ~40 years since then!);  texts like _Final Exit_;
etc.  Anyone watching the sales of those as an indicator of societal
trends would have a greater insight (beyond the "If I get that way,
somebody SHOOT me" sorts of casual comments you encounter)

> No matter what your sensibilities, the fact is that society does not
> have the resources to carry those who don't contribute.  We are
> trillions in debt already because of bleeding hearts trying.
>
> [*] a good movie, but not a role model for society.
>      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102609/

There's a fine line between "don't/won't contribute", "can't contribute"
and "can't carry their full load".

At "retirement", has the individual stopped contributing?  Or, do you
rationalize that their switch to 100% consumer is considered contributing??

How do you address the needs of the disabled?  Do we euthanize infants born
with severe handicaps?  Even a "science based, probabilistic model" as to
their expected societal contributions/costs would be a tough sell -- when
the infant is *yours*.

Is "inability to conceive/father" a genuine cause for resources to be diverted
to facilitate that?  Does society *really* "need" your offspring?  Can't
someone *else's* make up for that shortfall??

What about the flip side:  being *able* to conceive yet being unable to
provide for their needs?  Should that be criminal?

>> [OTOH, if you suddenly lose your vision, please drop me a line before
>> you put that one in the chamber!  :> ]
>
> You know that is a possibility 8-/  along with several other
> potentially nasty outcomes.  My health is stable and I'm not going
> broke, but if that balance shifts negatively, I won't burden others to
> care for me.

The fear is that you may not be (physically) capable of acting out those
wishes.  And, reliant on others to make that judgement call IN YOUR INTERESTS
(ignoring their own concerns).

Consider mistakes that happen in the normal "practice of medicine" (e.g.,
don't you see the big red letters at thew top of the chart allerting you
to my allergies?  then, why are you preparing to administer that med???)
and any expectation that this SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT (to you)
issue will be executed properly is wishful thinking.

> In case I forget, I'll leave a note in my will for someone to send you
> an email.  8-)

Heh heh heh... no, the point is to be able to grill you as to what you're
thinking while your grey matter is still "intact"!  :>

>> Ain't growing old, fun??!
>
> Whatever you're smoking, send me some.  Growing old sucks!!!

<shrug>  The consolation is that it happens to most of us!

"I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like grandpa; not screaming
in terror like the folks on the bus he was driving!"

Sunday lunch:  finestkind!

On 3/22/2015 5:12 AM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:20:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>> Many of the things that we do (take for granted) aren't really hard-wired
>> but simply learned behaviors (least effort).  When I initially thought
>> these folks had "sharper senses", I was met with a chuckle, told to close
>> my eyes and <whatever>:  "See, there's no magic involved.  You're just
>> relying on your vision because its *easiest* for you!  *I* don't have that
>> option!"
>
> No, it actually *is* true that their senses are sharper: not because
> their sensory modality is better, but rather because the brain cells
> that would have been devoted to vision instead are devoted to
> processing other modalities.
> [The visual cortex is roughly 1/8 of your brain - there's a whole lot
> of capacity there.]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit; the common perception is that
there is an implicit offset that accompanies this (or any other)
disability:  like a balloon squeezed at one end getting larger at the
other.

A newly blind person (adult/child/infant) has no sharper hearing (e.g.)
than any other person (adult/child/infant).  You don't get magically
compensated for the loss of a sensory receptor (just like your right
arm doesn't magically get stronger if you're born without a left one).

Rather, the resources associated with that sense are freed up (there's
nothing "wired" to them).  *You* choose to train them to adapt to other
uses.  Or not.

Because ("normal people") "don't have to" in order to live our lives,
we don't.  We don't *see* as much detail as we can -- simply because we
don't *need* to (UNTIL we need to).  E.g., I can look at my hands and
see generic hands.  Or, I can look "closer" (without actually bringing them
closer to my eyes) and notice all sorts of detail that was "not there"
in my previous inspection.

Watch TV (or your monitor) and you see "images".  Look "harder" and you see
the individual dots/scan lines of which their composed.

When I interviewed VI folks, they almost universally exclaimed how glad
they were NOT to be deaf!  (i.e., loss of vision being so much easier
to cope with than loss of hearing).  OTOH, if you asked most sighted
folks, they would probably rate sight as more precious.  <frown>

They're (VI) explanation is that you can do so much more with hearing
(esp once you learn "to hear") as it is omnidirectional (if you don't
see the bear creeping up behind you, you're LUNCH!) isn't obscured
by objects in its path, etc.

[This was made clear to me on an occasion when I was trying to get the
attention of a deaf neighbor who was gardening in her back yard with her
back to me.  I was chagrined at how *impossible* that problem was to
solve without walking around the house, letting myself into her yard and
cautiously approaching her -- soas not to startle]

> It has been proven that the brain adapts to loss of a sense modality
> by redirecting the cells that process that input to other tasks.  It
> has also been proven that it happens very quickly: there was a study
> in which sighted people were blindfolded for several weeks and given
> brain scans as they adapted to being sightless and tried to learn
> braille.  Their visual cortexes shifted to processing other inputs:
> mainly touch because "reading" now involved their fingers, but also
> some small areas shifted to processing hearing and smell.  When the
> blindfolds were removed, most of the cortex quickly shifted back to
> processing vision, but in many of the subjects some enhanced sense of
> touch remained.

Plasticity.  But, it only works when you try to *make* it work.
(and, when you have the "other senses" on which to rely).

E.g., loss of vision due to something like diabetic neuropathy
is often complicated by other loss of sensitivity in the extremities
(finger tips) that render them unsuitable for the desired level of
"input".  There was some work done on using the large surface of
a person's *back* as a "tablet" that could provide input when things
like fingertips weren't sensitive enough.  Not very convenient, though.

The other problem is motivation.  *Loss* of a sense is often accompanied
by depression and a sense of helplessness.  Few people are motivated
to *learn* a new skill to replace a lost sense.  Esp when that loss
comes late in life:  they just resign themselves ("adapt"!  :< ) to
living without.

It takes a fair bit of work to refine a "replacement" sense.  Esp when
you are always subconsciously thinking of it in contrast to what you
*had*, previously.

I can sight read L1 braille about as fast as most typical (L1) braille
"tactile readers".  (I use L2 so infrequently that my reading rate,
there, drops to a crawl -- folks learn to leave me notes in L1 if
they want me to be able to read and respond in any reasonable period!)

OTOH, when I try to read with my fingertips, (even L1) my reading
rate drops precipitously.  I have to think about what's under my fingers
and convert those sensations to a visual representation -- i.e., construct
the braille cell in my mind -- and then "read" that "visually" (even though
my eyes aren't really "looking at it").

Navigation also becomes more tedious; I can't just dart my eyes back
(or up a row) to confirm -- or REEVALUATE -- what I "read" before.
Instead, I have to backpedal my hands over the cells that I've just
"read" (read backwards, so to speak).  I.e., you learn to read
two-handed to be effective.

[In the context of writing code and programming languages, this is where
consistency can yield substantial rewards.  I.e., if certain operations
are done in certain ways/styles, the reader can *infer* quite a lot
without having to actually verify all the details.  Some of that comes
from language design choices; other comes from consistency on the part
of the *writer*]

A 60-ish person losing vision to MD or DR probably wouldn't have
the patience to deal with that level of frustration.  They'd, instead,
replace print media with some other form -- which might also prove
challenging (e.g., my comprehension for audio modalities is much
less than visual ones).

It's only in these situations do you begin to realize how many products
and devices *require* sight -- even though they don't inherently *need* to!
(e.g., before touchscreens, you could make a phone call without looking at
your phone!)

> The study did not continue long enough to see whether hearing and
> smell eventually would improve similarly as did the sense of touch.
>
> It was discovered in a second study using the same subjects that the
> brain adapted more quickly to being blind when it happened again.  The
> subjects didn't experience the same disorientation as in the first
> study.
>
> A related study using other subjects discovered that an EM jolt given
> to the visual cortex allowed it to transition more quickly to doing
> something else [a possible aid for those who become suddenly blind].

On 23.03.2015 03:19, Don Y wrote:
>
> <shrug>  Screwed up society when *others* seem to think they have a
> right to decide how *you* handle your own life...

Don, you are just describing, what religion is. ;-)

-- 
Reinhardt

On 3/22/2015 4:30 PM, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> On 23.03.2015 03:19, Don Y wrote:
>>
>> <shrug>  Screwed up society when *others* seem to think they have a
>> right to decide how *you* handle your own life...
>
> Don, you are just describing, what religion is. ;-)

You might be amused by:

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/letearth.htm>

[I've not verified the page's content -- just hoping google
served up the correct response to my query.  I have a paperback
in storage, somewhere...]